ASHOK BALAJI RATAN Vs. NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is arising out of judgment and order passed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, nagpur, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant-present respondent on cost of Rs. 200/ -.

(2.) REGULARIZATION of unauthorised construction carried on by the present applicant in violation of the sanctioned construction plan is the subject matter of suit decree wherein has led to present revision application. It is seen that the respondent herein had moved by a notice under section 52 of the N. I. T. Act read with section 286 (2) of City of Nagpur corporation Act, 1948. The notice was issued alleging that the construction is in violation of bye-laws framed under Maharashtra Regional and town Planning Act. The notice issued by the present respondent was called in question in Regular Civil Suit No. 227/90. The suit resulted in a decree where the action of the respondent in declining to refuse the regularisation of unauthorised construction, was held illegal by the learned joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. It is said judgment and decree passed in R. C. S. No. 227/90 passed on 27th February, 1992, that was called in question by filing Regular Civil Appeal by the present respondent and the appeal being delayed, the application for condonation of delay was filed which was registered as M. C. A. No. 614/98. The said application for condonation of delay was allowed and the judgment and order therein is the subject matter of present revision application.

(3.) THE applicant herein has taken exception to that order with a plea that the delay has not been properly explained much less explained day to day. The bone of contention of the applicant is also that all details as to the trace of papers have moved in the office of the respondent herein and ultimately resulted in delay of two months and 25 days is caused is not explained. The learned counsel further and vehemently relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in Civil Application No. 1400/98 in Second Appeal Stamp No. 378/98 where this Court (Coram : S. P. Kulkarni, j) rejected the application for condonation of delay by order dated 3rd august, 1999. The applicant has contended that in that case there was delay of 295 days and it was not properly explained. He also tried to contend that the manner in which the delay was explained in the said case and the manner in which it has been explained in the present case is same or similar as well the applicant in that case is N. I. T. which is the present respondent. He, therefore, urged that the said party i. e. the present respondent having suffered by the judgment, the ratio laid down in that case should govern the present case as well: All the details of the case as involved in the second appeal (i. e. S. A. Stamp No. 378/1998) are not before this Court as the petitioner herein did not bring those on record.